Bug 17084

Summary:	Individual CM's should have a desriptive name ie telepathy-<protocol>-<name>
Product:	Telepathy	Reporter:	Michael Stephenson <mickstephenson>
Component:	general	Assignee:	Telepathy bugs list <telepathy-bugs>
Status:	RESOLVED MOVED	QA Contact:	Telepathy bugs list <telepathy-bugs>
Severity:	enhancement
Priority:	low	CC:	mickstephenson
Version:	unspecified
Hardware:	All
OS:	All
Whiteboard:
i915 platform:		i915 features:

Description Michael Stephenson 2008-08-11 13:16:22 UTC

Currently the convention for naming the protocols is merely telepathy-<name> eg. telepathy-idle and telepathy-gabble. These names are somewhat cryptic and not descriptive of which protocol the package contains this adds to confusion for users when they wish to install their desired protocol.
If the naming convention telepathy-<protocol>-<name> were used users, could see at a glance which protocol they need to install without further investigation.

Comment 1 Guillaume Desmottes 2008-08-12 01:40:18 UTC

What about CM supporting more than one protocol as Haze?
Furthermore, the list of protocols supported by a CM is not set in the stone and we certainly don't want to rename the package at each protocol change.

I think the right solution is to make CM's installation easier from the client. See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=518429 for example.

Comment 2 Alban Crequy 2008-08-12 02:32:20 UTC

I agree that haze cannot use the telepathy-<protocol>-<name> naming convention. I don't think Gabble, Idle, Butterfly will change the protocol they support. Most of the CM support only one protocol, so this naming convention makes sense for them.

But changing the name of the package now is not easy. oggis said "all package management systems don't even provide a Replaces: like system"

Comment 3 Murray Cumming 2008-08-12 02:40:24 UTC

Surely it's more important to just have a proper list of connection managers and their protocols on the website:
http://telepathy.freedesktop.org/wiki/

Also, in Ubuntu, for instance, the protocols are clearly mentioned in the description, visible, for instance, in the list of packages in Synaptic. But users should never have to install connection managers manually anyway.

Comment 4 Michael Stephenson 2008-08-12 03:16:50 UTC

"I think the right solution is to make CM's installation easier from the client.
See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=518429 for example."
While this is a good idea I don't see how this directly relates to what I am saying, just because packagekit will make it easier to install CM's doesn't mean their naming convention shouldn't be more transparent, also their are some package management systems that will never be supported by packagekit, portage for example.
"Surely it's more important to just have a proper list of connection managers
and their protocols on the website"
Again I don't see these ideas as being mutually exclusive.
"What about CM supporting more than one protocol as Haze?"
Just a suggestion telepathy-libpurple-haze?

Comment 5 GitLab Migration User 2019-12-09 11:21:22 UTC

-- GitLab Migration Automatic Message --

This bug has been migrated to freedesktop.org's GitLab instance and has been closed from further activity.

You can subscribe and participate further through the new bug through this link to our GitLab instance: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/telepathy/telepathy-spec/issues/148.

Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.